<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">JPEE</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Journal of Power and Energy Engineering</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2327-588X</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/jpee.2015.36002</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">JPEE-57246</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Engineering</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Hybrid Dissolved Gas-in-Oil Analysis Methods
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>eonidha</surname><given-names>Londo</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Rajmonda</surname><given-names>Bualoti</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Marialis</surname><given-names>Çelo</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Nako</surname><given-names>Hiobdar</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Transmission System Operator, Tirana, Albania</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Electric Engineering Faculty, Polytechnic University of Tirana, Tirana, Albania</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>bualoti@icc-al.org(EL)</email>;</corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>10</day><month>06</month><year>2015</year></pub-date><volume>03</volume><issue>06</issue><fpage>10</fpage><lpage>19</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>26</day>	<month>May</month>	<year>2015</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>accepted</day>	<month>15</month>	<year>June</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>18</day>	<month>June</month>	<year>2015</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Dissolved gas analysis is the most widely used diagnostic test in power transformers. The aim of this paper is to introduce the dissolved gas analysis (DGA) methods able to diagnose the transformer conditions. The faults cause the transformer oil, pressboard, and other insulating materials to decompose and generate gases, some of which dissolve in the oil. The results of DGA must be accurate if faults are to be diagnosed reliably. There are different established methods used in industry for interpreting DGA results. We will compare the result of IEEE Key Gas Methods and Rogers’ Ratios. The transformer conditions are evaluated by the Key Gas Method with total combustible gas method (TCGM) and then verified by the Rogers’ Ratios. As result, the aging pattern and trend of the power transformer deterioration can be determined. The 30 sample data from IEEE with known faults and dissolved gas concentrations were used as the basis of comparison.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Dissolved Gas Analysis</kwd><kwd> Key Gas Methods</kwd><kwd> Rogers’ Ratios</kwd><kwd> Transformer</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>A transformer is the most important equipment for power supply to consumers. Failure of one power transformer may cause long interruptions in supply, costly repairs and loss of revenue. For uninterrupted power supply to consumers, proper maintenance, particularly preventive maintenance, is very necessary. The failure in magnetic, electric and dielectric circuits as well as structural failure may cause extensive damage to the equipment and surroundings. Proper operation and maintenance procedure may help to prevent failure and extend life of operation of the transformer.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Risk of Failure of Transformers</title><p>The mineral oil uses in transformers, acts as a dielectric medium and also as a heat transfer agent. The breakdown of electrical insulating materials and related components inside the transformer liberates gases within the unit. The distribution of these gases can be related to the type of electrical fault, and the rate of gas generation can indicate the severity of the fault. The identity of the gases being generated by a particular unit can be very useful information in any preventive maintenance program [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57246-ref1">1</xref>] - [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57246-ref3">3</xref>] . There are several techniques in detecting those fault gases and DGA was recognized as the most informative method. This method involves sampling of the oil to measure the concentration of the dissolved gases. The risk of failure of transformers in service, based on dissolved gas analysis (DGA), depends on three main parameters: the type of fault involved, the location of the fault (in oil or in paper), and the amount of gases formed (concentrations and rates).</p><p>・ The most dangerous faults are: high-energy arcing faults in oil and paper (D2), low-energy arcing faults in paper (D1), and hot spots in paper of high temperatures (&gt;700˚C T3 and 300˚C - 700˚C T2).</p><p>・ Less dangerous faults are: low-energy arcing faults in oil (D1), hot-spots in oil (&gt;700˚C T3 and 300˚C - 700˚C T2), and hot spots in paper of low temperature (&lt;300˚C T1).</p><p>・ Non-dangerous faults are: hot spots in oil (&lt;300˚C T1), producing only “stray gassing” of oil, corona partial discharges (PD) (unless very high levels of hydrogen are formed), catalytic reactions with water, and aging of paper.</p><p>A risk model for transformer failures [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57246-ref4">4</xref>] - [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57246-ref6">6</xref>] , based on aging, can be represented by Perks formula:</p><disp-formula id="scirp.57246-formula178"><label>. (1)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/2-1770135x5.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref> is the corresponding exponential curve for 50% failure rate at the age of 50 year. To include the random events (lighting, vandalism, etc.) separate from the aging component, the constant “A” is set at 0.005. In <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref> is represented the age of the main transformers of Albanian Transmission System. We can see that for some transformers the failure rate is higher than 10%. They are expensive equipments; that’s why there has been a growing interest in the technique to diagnose, determine and decide the condition assessment of transformer insulation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57246-ref7">7</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57246-ref8">8</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Identification of Type of Faults</title><p>The general type of fault (PD, D1, D2, T1, T2, and T3) can be identified by several methods: e.g., Rogers, Key Gas, IEC ratios, and Duval Triangle [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57246-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57246-ref10">10</xref>] . Electrical and thermal stresses such as arching, partial discharges and overheating cause degradation of dielectric oil and solid dielectric cellulose materials.</p><p>The degradation of insulation produces different gases. Different degradation mechanisms generate different gases thus making it possible to determine the degrading part of the transformer. Power transformer gas-in-oil analysis (DGA) can be used for effective diagnostics and monitoring. The IEEE and IEC guides [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57246-ref11">11</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57246-ref12">12</xref>] offer a variety of ratio-based tools to diagnose DGA data. A quick summary of the different tools found in the current IEEE guide and the IEC guide is in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>.</p><fig id="fig1"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref></label><caption><title> The curve for transformer failure rate</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/2-1770135x6.png"/></fig><fig id="fig2"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref></label><caption><title> Autotransformers and Transformers ages in Albanian Transmission System</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/2-1770135x7.png"/></fig><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> A summary of the different tools</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Tool</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Reference Standard</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >IEEE C57. 104-1991</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >IEC 60599-1999</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Key Gas Procedure</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >X</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rogers Ratios</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >X</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >TDCG Procedure</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >X</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Basic Gas Ratios</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >X</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Duval Triangle</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >X</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Doernenburg Ratios</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >X</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>DGA diagnostic tools vary in their complexity and accuracy. <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref> shows the comparison among the most widely used DGA diagnostic methods.</p><p>The Albanian Power Companies started to invest to DGA laboratory tests from two years, so there is no previous dissolved gas history data. In IEC Standards 60599 is suggested a four-level criterion to classify risks to transformers evaluating individual gas and TDCG concentrations when there is no previous dissolved gas history. That is why among different methods for interpreting DGA results, we will use hybrid method based in the Key Gas Method with total dissolved combustible gas method to be evaluated and then verified by the Rogers’ Ratios.</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Gases Detected and Their Relevance</title><p>Typical gases generated from mineral oil/cellulose (paper and pressboard) insulated transformers include: Hydrogen, H<sub>2</sub>; Methane, CH4; Ethane, C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>6</sub>; Ethylene, C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>4</sub>; Acetylene, C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>2</sub>; Carbon Monoxide, CO; Carbon Dioxide, CO<sub>2</sub>. Additionally, oxygen and nitrogen are always present; their concentrations vary with the type of preservation system used on the transformer. In addition, gases such as propane, butane and others can be formed as well, but their use for diagnostic purposes is not widespread. The concentration of the different gases provides information about the type of incipient-fault condition present as well as the severity. In <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref> and <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref> are shown fault interpretations from dissolved gases according [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57246-ref13">13</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Key Gas Method and TDCG method</title><p>The key gas method is mainly depends on the quantity of fault gases release in mineral oil when fault occur.</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Comparison of DGA diagnostic methods</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Features</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Rogers Ratio</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Key Gas</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >TDCG</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Data can be quickly and easily interpreted</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >􀀹</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >􀀹</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Early detection of fault</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >􀀹</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >􀀹</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >􀀹</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fault types can be identify accurately</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >􀀹</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >􀀹</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Able to identify in detail a specific fault type</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >􀀹</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Can interpret based on individual or incomplete fault gases</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >􀀹</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Oil volume independent</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >􀀹</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Transformer type independent</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >􀀹</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >􀀹</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Fault interpretation from dissolved according</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Gas</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Normal ppm</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Abnormal ppm</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Interpretation</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >H<sub>2</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >150</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Arcing corona</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CH<sub>4</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sparking</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>6</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Local overheating</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>4</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Severe overheating</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>2</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Arcing</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CO</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >500</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Severe overloading</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CO<sub>2</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10,000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15,000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Severe overloading</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >TDCG</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >720</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2285</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Fault interpretations from gases detected in the insulation oil</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >No.</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Gases Detected in Oil Sample</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Fault Interpretations</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nitrogen plus 5% or less oxygen</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Normal operation</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Transformer winding insulation overheated; Key gas is carbon monoxide CO</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nitrogen, ethylene, and methane―some hydrogen and ethane</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Transformer oil is overheated; minor fault causing oil breakdown. Key gas is ethylene C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>4</sub></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nitrogen, hydrogen, small quantities of ethane and ethylene</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Corona discharge in oil; key gas is hydrogen H<sub>2</sub></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Same as 4 with carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Corona involving paper insulation; key gas is hydrogen H<sub>2</sub></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nitrogen, high hydrogen and acetylene; minor quantities of methane and ethylene</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >High-energy arcing; key gas is acetylene C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>2</sub></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Same as 6 with carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >High-energy arcing involves paper insulation of winding; key gas is acetylene C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>2</sub></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Fault gases are caused by corona (partial discharge), thermal heating and arcing. The Key Gas Method considers the following four general fault types:</p><p>1) Thermal fault due to overheated oil;</p><p>2) Thermal fault due to overheated cellulose;</p><p>3) Electrical fault due to corona;</p><p>4) Electrical fault due to arcing.</p><p>The standard of IEEE Std C57.104-1991 indicates the key gases and their relative proportions for four fault types (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>). Generally, the thermal decomposition of oil produced more than 60% of ethylene (C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>4</sub>) and thermal decomposition of cellulose produce key gas carbon monoxide (CO) is 90%. In case of corona in oil mainly produce large amount principal gas hydrogen nearly 80% and due to arcing key gas acetylene produced 30% with trace quantity of hydrogen.</p><p>The total dissolved combustible gas (TDCG) is the definition of the sum of the combustible gas concentrations as follows:</p><disp-formula id="scirp.57246-formula179"><label>(2)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/2-1770135x8.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>InIEC Standards 60599 it is suggested a four-level criterion (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref>) to classify risks to transformers when there is no previous dissolved gas history as follow:</p><p>Condition 1: TDGC below this level indicates the transformer is operating satisfactorily;</p><p>Condition 2: TDGC within this range indicates greater than normal combustible level. Action should be taken to establish a trend;</p><p>Condition 3: TDGC within this range indicates a high level of decomposition. Immediate action should be taken to establish a trend;</p><p>Condition 4: TDGC within this range indicates excessive decomposition. Continued operation could result in failure of the transformer.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>6. Roger’s Ratio Method</title><p>This method uses five gases (H<sub>2</sub>, C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>6</sub>, CH4, C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>2</sub> and C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>4</sub>) to generate codes based on their composition ratio [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57246-ref14">14</xref>] . The codes are then used to categorize a range of ratios used to diagnose the fault as shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref>.</p><p>The method utilizes the ratio of gas concentration to indicate fault types. Rogers Ratio method can be used when any of individual gases exceeds its normal limit and it does not depend on specific gas concentrations. The Rogers Ratio method utilizes four ratios; C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>6</sub>/CH<sub>4</sub>, C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>2</sub>/C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>4</sub>, CH<sub>4</sub>/H<sub>2</sub>, and C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>4</sub>/C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>6</sub> that leads to twenty-two proposed diagnosis as shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref> [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57246-ref15">15</xref>] . Rogers Ratio method diagnosis provides more interpretation details in terms of temperature range of decomposition.</p><p>In [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57246-ref16">16</xref>] , the Rogers Ratio method diagnosis was revised, as shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table9">Table 9</xref>, to include only six diagnosis interpretations; normal, low-energy density arcing-PD, arcing-high-energy discharge (D2), low temperature thermal (T1), thermal 300˚C - 700˚C (T2) and thermal &gt;700˚C (T3).</p><p>This method does not consider dissolved gases below normal concentration limits; also certain ratio values are inconsistent with the diagnostic assigned and lead to invalid codes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57246-ref17">17</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>7. A Hybrid DGA Analysis Methods</title><p>The hybrid method proposed in this paper is a step-by-step procedure (flow chart <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>) to diagnose faults</p><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> The key gases and their relative proportions for four fault types</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Faults/Gases</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >CO</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >H<sub>2</sub></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >CH<sub>4</sub></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>6</sub></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>4</sub></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>2</sub></th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Overheated oil</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Overheated cellulose</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Corona in oil</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Arcing in oil</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table6" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref></label><caption><title> Dissolved gas concentrations (ppm)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Status</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >H<sub>2</sub></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >CH<sub>4</sub></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>2</sub></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>4</sub></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>6</sub></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >CO</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >CO<sub>2</sub></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >TDCG</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Condition 1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;120</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;65</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;350</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;2500</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;720</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Condition 2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >101 - 700</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >121 - 400</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36 - 50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51 - 100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66 - 100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >351 - 570</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2500 - 4000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >721 - 1920</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Condition 3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >701 - 1800</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >401 - 1000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51 - 80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >101 - 200</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >101 - 150</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >571 - 1400</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4001 - 10,000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1921 - 4630</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Condition 4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;1800</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;1000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;200</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;150</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;1400</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;10,000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;4630</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><fig id="fig3"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref></label><caption><title> The flow chart of the hybrid Methods</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/2-1770135x9.png"/></fig><table-wrap id="table7" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref></label><caption><title> Code definition of Rogers refined ratio method</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Gas Ratio</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Range</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Code</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >CH<sub>4</sub>/H<sub>2</sub> (R1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Not greater than 0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Between 0.1 and 1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Between 1.0 and 3.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Not less than 3.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>6</sub>/CH<sub>4</sub> (R<sub>4</sub>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Less than 1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Not less than 1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>4</sub>/C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>6</sub> (R5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Less than 1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Between 1.0 and 3.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Not less than 3.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>2</sub>/C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>4</sub> (R<sub>2</sub>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Less than 0.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Between 0.5 and 3.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Not less than 3.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>using the Key Gas Method with total combustible gas method (TCGM) and then verified by the Rogers’ Ratios.</p><p>Step 1. Gas concentrations are obtained by DGA and TCGM is evaluated;</p><p>Step 2. If at least one of the gas concentrations (in ppm) for H<sub>2</sub>, CH<sub>4</sub>, C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>2</sub>, C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>4</sub>, C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>6</sub> and TCGM exceeds the values for abnormal limit (see <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>), the unit is considered faulty; proceed to Step 4;</p><p>Step 3. If at least one of the gas concentrations (in ppm) for H<sub>2</sub>, CH<sub>4</sub>, C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>2</sub>, C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>4</sub>, C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>6</sub> and TCGM exceeds the values for limit C<sub>2</sub> (see <xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref>), the unit is considered faulty; precede to Step 4, otherwise “No fault condition”;</p><p>Step 4. Determining the values of ratio obtained from <xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref> in the order of ratio CH<sub>4</sub>/H<sub>2</sub>, C2H<sub>2</sub>/CH<sub>4</sub>, C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>4</sub>/C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>6</sub> and C<sub>2</sub>H6/CH<sub>4</sub> procedure. Define the codes from <xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref>;</p><p>Step 5. Each successive code is compared to the values obtained from <xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref> to define the fault;</p><p>Step 6. If all succeeding ratios for a specific fault type fall within the values (column) given in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table9">Table 9</xref>, the type of fault is defined;</p><p>Step 7. The gas concentrations for H<sub>2</sub>, CH<sub>4</sub>, C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>2</sub>, C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>4</sub>, C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>6</sub> in % of TCGM is evaluated; If relative proportions of the keys gases for a specific fault type fall within the values given in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>, the suggested diagnosis is valid. The report of fault is defined.</p><table-wrap id="table8" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref></label><caption><title> Fault diagnosis table for Rogers ratio method</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >No.</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Codes</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Fault Type</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >B: Partial discharges of low energy density or hydrolysis</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >E: Partial discharges of increasing energy density</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5010</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >D: Coincidental partial discharges and conductor overheating</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C: Partial discharges of high energy density, possibly with tracking</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >A: No fault: normal deterioration</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N: Thermal fault of temperature range 100˚C - 200˚C</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0010</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >I: Insulated conductor overheating</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0011</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >J: Complex thermal hotspot and conductor overheating</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >F: Low energy discharge: flashover without power follow through</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0101</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >K: Coincidental thermal hotspot and low energy discharge</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0110</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >G: Low energy discharge: continuous sparking to floating potential</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0120</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >H: High energy discharge: arc with power follow through</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0200</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >F: Low energy discharge: flashover without power follow through</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0210</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >G: Low energy discharge: continuous sparking to floating potential</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0220</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >H: High energy discharge: arc with power follow through</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >M: Thermal fault of low temperature range &lt; 150˚C</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N: Thermal fault of temperature range 100˚C - 200˚C</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1010</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >O: Thermal fault of temperature range temperature range 150˚C - 300˚C overheating of copper due to eddy currents</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1020</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >P: Thermal fault of high temperature range 300˚C - 700˚C: bad contacts/joints: core and tank circulating currents</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >K: Coincidental thermal hotspot and low energy discharge</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >N: Thermal fault of temperature range 100˚C - 200˚C</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2020</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >P: Thermal fault of high temperature range 300˚C - 700˚C: bad contacts/ joints: core and tank circulating currents</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table9" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table9">Table 9</xref></label><caption><title> Latest version of RRM diagnosis</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Case</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >R<sub>2</sub> C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>2</sub>/C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>4</sub></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >R1 CH<sub>4</sub>/H<sub>2</sub></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >R5 C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>4</sub>/C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>6</sub></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Suggested Fault Diagnosis</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;0.1 to &lt;1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Unit normal</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Low-energy density arcing-PD</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1 to 3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1 to 1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Arcing?High-energy discharge</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;0.1 to &lt;1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 to 3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Low temperature thermal</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 to 3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Thermal less than 700˚C</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Thermal exceeding 700˚C</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec><sec id="s8"><title>8. Results</title><p>The method was tested against all the 30 cases in the data set [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57246-ref18">18</xref>] . In <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>0, we show a set of data that illustrate the method as well as the evaluation of the key gases concentrations according <xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref> (Step 1).</p><p>In <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>1 are represented the result of application of step 2 and 3 of above methods and the first step evaluation of faults. In <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>2 are represented the Rogers’ Ratios and the fault according to the Rogers Code Method.</p><table-wrap id="table10" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>0</label><caption><title> Set of data used in analysis and the evaluation the key gases concentrations</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >No.</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >H<sub>2</sub> (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >CH<sub>4</sub> (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>2</sub> (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>4</sub> (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>6</sub> (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >CO (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >TDGC (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Actual Fault</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >H<sub>2</sub></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >CH<sub>4</sub></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>2</sub></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>4</sub></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>6</sub></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >CO</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >TDGC</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >79</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >215</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >418</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >DHE</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >266</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >584</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >862</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >328</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >230</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2271</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >TF</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9474</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4345</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12,752</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6517</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >353</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >504</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33,945</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >TF-H</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >507</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1053</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1440</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >297</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3034</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6348</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >DHE</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >441</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >207</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >261</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >224</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >234</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1410</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >TF-M</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >C2</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table11" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>1</label><caption><title> Set of data used in evaluation of fault according the key gases concentrations</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >No.</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >H<sub>2</sub> %</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >CH<sub>4</sub> %</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>2</sub> %</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>4</sub> %</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>6</sub> %</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >CO %</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Fault</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Normal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Normal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Normal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Severe Overheating</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Normal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Normal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >TF</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Normal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sparking</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Normal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Severe Overheating</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Local Overheating</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Normal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >TF</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Arcing, Corona</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sparking</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Arcing</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Severe Overheating</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Local Overheating</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Normal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >TF-H</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Normal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sparking</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Normal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Severe Overheating</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Local Overheating</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Severe Overloading</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >DHE</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Normal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sparking</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Arcing</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Severe Overheating</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Local Overheating</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Normal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >TF</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>2 represented the result of application of step 4 and 5 of above methods based in the following reasoning:</p><p>1) Since total combustible gases (TDCG) are LESS the 720 ppm, the Rogers’ Ratios result indicated below is considered less significant. Since C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>4</sub> is ABNORMAL a Core &amp; Tank circulating currents overheated joints;</p><p>2) Since total combustible gases (TDCG) are GREATER than 720 ppm, the Rogers’ Ratios result indicated below should be considered more significant. Winding circulating currents;</p><p>3) Since total combustible gases (TDCG) are GREATER than 720 ppm, the Rogers’ Ratios result indicated below should be considered more significant. Arc, with power follow through;</p><p>4) Since total combustible gases (TDCG) are GREATER than 720 ppm, the Rogers’ Ratios result indicated below should be considered more significant. Core &amp; Tank circulating currents overheated joints;</p><p>5) Since total combustible gases (TDCG) are GREATER than 720 ppm, the Rogers’ Ratios result indicated below should be considered more significant. Arc, with power follow through.</p><p>From Tables 10-12, we can see the evaluation of the results for 5 cases has given a successful prediction with the Key Gas Method with total combustible gas method (TCGM) for cases 2 - 5 and a successful prediction with the Rogers’ Ratios for case 2.</p><p>The evaluation of the results for 30 cases in the data set give a successful prediction of the Key Gas Method with total combustible gas method (TCGM) of about 78%, a successful prediction of the Rogers’ Ratios of about 45% and the successful prediction of the Hybrid Method of about 87%.</p></sec><sec id="s9"><title>9. Case Study Albanian Power Companies</title><p>The Albanian Power Companies started to invest in the last years to DGA laboratory tests to monitor main HPPs transformer units [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.57246-ref19">19</xref>] . The data consists of numerical measurement of each individual key gas in ppm. In <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>3 are represented the data measured in transformer of HEC Koman, one of the main power plant in Albania in two consecutive months.</p><p>By looking at the relative proportions of gases in the DGA results and the monthly increase it could be possible to identify the type of fault occurring in the transformer. It is evident an increase of Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen and humidity, while TDCG are LESS the 720 ppm. So, the rehabilitation of oil through degasification and dehumidification was necessary. After this process, as presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>4, the relative proportions of gases in the DGA results at normal value.</p><table-wrap id="table12" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>2</label><caption><title> Set of data used in evaluation of fault according the Rogers Code Method</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >No.</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >H<sub>2</sub> (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >CH<sub>4</sub> (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>2</sub> (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>4</sub> (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>6</sub> (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >CO (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >TDGC (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Actual Fault</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >R1 CH<sub>4</sub>/H<sub>2</sub></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >R4 C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>6</sub>/CH<sub>4</sub></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >R5 C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>4</sub>/C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>6</sub></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >R2 C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>2</sub>/C<sub>2</sub>H<sub>4</sub></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Roger Codes</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Fault</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >79</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >215</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >418</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >DHE</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.38</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1020</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >TF</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >266</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >584</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >862</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >328</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >230</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2271</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >TF</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1010</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >TF-M</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9474</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4345</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12,752</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6517</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >353</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >504</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33,945</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >TF-H</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0021</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >DHE</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >507</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1053</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1440</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >297</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3034</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6348</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >DHE</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1020</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >TF-H</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >441</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >207</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >261</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >224</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >234</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1410</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >TF-M</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0021</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >DHE</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table13" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>3</label><caption><title> The data measured in transformer of HEC Koman</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Unit</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Sample Date</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Hydrogen (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Methan (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Acetylen (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Ethylene (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Ethan (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Carbon Monoxid (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Carbon Dioxid (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Oxygen (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >TDCG (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Water (ppm)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >TR4 HEC KOMAN</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5/1/2015 18:00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >314.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3565</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19937.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >427</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3/12/2014 23:00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >74.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >238.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2744</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17353.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >347</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Monthly increase</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−10.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >76.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >821</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2583.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-5.2</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table14" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>4</label><caption><title> The data measured in transformer of HEC Koman after the rehabilitation of oil</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Unit</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Sample Date</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Hydrogen (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Methane (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Acetylene (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Ethylene (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Ethan (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Carbon Monoxide (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Carbon Dioxide (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Oxygen (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >TDCG (ppm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Water (ppm)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >TR4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16/02/2015 18:00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >500</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec><sec id="s10"><title>10. Conclusions</title><p>For uninterrupted power supply to consumers, proper maintenance of transformer, particularly preventive maintenance, is very necessary. The IEC standards 60599 and IEEE standards C57.104-1991 help in interpretation of DGA results, which together with further field inspections and experienced personnel judgment can give an answer to what is going on inside a suspected unhealthy transformer. The Key Gas Method in principal gives no answer in multiple fault condition.</p><p>To increase the accuracy of the interpretation and the certainty of the transformer condition, a hybrid method based on the Key Gas Method with total combustible gas method (TCGM) verified by the Rogers’ Ratios is used to improve the accuracy of interpretation of DGA results.</p><p>The result of the prediction done to test the accuracy of the method shows the improvement of accuracy with 9% compared with the simple Key Gas Method.</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.57246-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Griffin, P.J. (1998) Criteria for the Interpretation of Data for Dissolved Gases in Oil from Transformers (A Review). Special Technical Publication 998, ASTM, Philadelphia, 89-107.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57246-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Suleiman, A.A., et al. (2012) Improving Accuracy of DGA Interpretation of Oil-Filled Power Transformers Needed for Effective Condition Monitoring. IEEE International Conference on Condition Monitoring and Diagnosis, Bali, 23-27 September 2012, 374-378.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57246-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lewand, L.R. and Griffin, P.J. (2000) The Effective Use of Laboratory Analysis of Insulating Oil as a Maintenance Tool. Proceedings of the Sixty-Seventh Annual International Conference of Doble Clients, Watertown, 27-31 March 2000, Sec 5-8.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57246-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pradhan, M.K. and Ramu, T.S. (2004) Criteria for Estimation of End of Life of Power and Station Transformers in Service, Electrical Insulation and Dielectric Phenomena, CEIDP. Annual Report Conference, Boulder, 17-20 October 2004, 220-223.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57246-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">William H. Bartley, P.E. (2004) An Analysis of Transformer Failures. Part 2. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company. https://www.hsb.com/TheLocomotive/Article.aspx?id=169&amp;terms=Bartley</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57246-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chen, Q.M. and Egan, D.M. (2006) A Bayesian Method for Transformer Life Estimation Using Perks’ Hazard Function. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 21, 1954-1965. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2006.881129</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57246-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ding, X.Q. and Cai, H. (2001) On-Line Transformer Winding’s Fault Monitoring and Condition Assessment. Proceedings of 2001 International Symposium on Electrical Insulating Materials (ISEIM 2001), Himeji, 19-22 November 2001, 801-804.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57246-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">McGrail, T. and Wilson, A. (1997) On-Line Gas Sensors. IEE Colloquium on Condition Monitoring of Large Machines and Power Transformers, London, 19 June 1997, 1/1-1/4.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57246-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sun, H.-C., Huang, Y.-C. and Huang, C.-M. (2012) A Review of Dissolved Gas Analysis in Power Transformers. Energy Procedia, 14, 1220-1225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.12.1079</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57246-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Stebbins, R.D., Kelly, J.J. and Myers, S.D. (1997) Power Transformer Fault Diagnosis. IEEE PES WM, Panel Session, New York, 6 February 1997, 463-468.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57246-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">IEEE Standards C57.104-1991. IEEE Guide for the Interpretation of Gases Generated in Oil-Immersed Transformers, 1991.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57246-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">IEC Standards 60599 (1999) Mineral Oil-Impregnated Electrical Equipment in Service—Guide to the Interpretation of Dissolved and Free Gases Analysis. Second Edition.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57246-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Franz&amp;eacute;n, A. and Karlsson, S. (2007) Failure Modes and Effects Analysis of Transformers. Technical Report TRITA-EE 2007:040, KTH School of Electrical Engineering.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57246-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rogers, R.R. (1975) UK Experiences in the Interpretation of Incipient Faults in Power Transformers by Dissolved Gas-in-Oil Chromatography Analysis (A Progress Report). Minutes of Forty-Second International Conference of Doble Clients, Section 10-201</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57246-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rogers, R.R. (1978) IEEE and IEC Codes to Interpret Incipient Faults in Transformers, Using Gas in Oil Analysis. IEEE Transactions on Electrical Insulation, EI-13, 349-354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TEI.1978.298141</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57246-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">IEEE Guide for the Interpretation of Gases Generated in Oil-Immersed Transformers—Redline. IEEE Std C57.104- 2008 (Revision of IEEE Std C57.104-1991)—Redline, pp. 1-45, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57246-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Abu-Siada, A. and Islam, S. (2012) A New Approach to Identify Power Transformer Criticality and Asset Management Decision Based on Dissolved Gas-in-Oil Analysis. IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, 19, 1007-1012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TDEI.2012.6215106</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57246-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Beykverdi, M., Faghihi, F. and Pour, A.M. (2014) A New Approach for Transformer Incipient Fault Diagnosis Based on Dissolved Gas Analysis (DGA). Nova Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 3, 1-7. www.novaexplore.com</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.57246-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Londo, L., &amp;CCEDIL;elo, M. and Bualoti, R. (2015) Assessment of Transformer Condition Using the Improve Key Gas Methods. International Journal of Engineering Research &amp; Technology (IJERT), 4, 48-55.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>